Cognitive and behavioural environmental concern among university students in a Canadian city: Implications for institutional interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Informed by Stern and colleagues’ value-belief-norm theory and their earlier empirical work, we examined levels and predictors of cognitive and behavioural environmental concern (EC) of university students in a Canadian postsecondary context. Data for this study were obtained through completion of self-administered questionnaires from a sample of 421 undergraduate students attending a public university in Saskatchewan, a province heavily focused on expanding resource extraction. The study used a descriptive, correlational, and cross-sectional methodology. Statistical analysis was performed in three parts: (a) univariate description of students’ cognitive and behavioural EC indicators; (b) bivariate associations to assess the nature and direction of the relationships between EC measures; and (c) multivariate analyses to test the causal structure of the theoretical model. Results showed no widespread acceptance of the ‘New Ecological Paradigm’. Students were slightly more prone to place responsibility for environmental protection at the door of government and industry than themselves. Respondents practised a range of environmentally supportive behaviours (ESB) with varying intensities. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses provided support for several of the theory’s propositions in predicting generalised and specific environmental beliefs and ESB. Findings highlighted the complex relationships between personal background, academic and cognitive variables and ESB. That formal instruction on the environment influenced cognitive and behavioural EC, both directly and indirectly, suggests it is essential universities have formal curricula that expose students to the types of environmental knowledge, awareness, and critical thinking skills to promote environmental literacy and address unsustainable lifestyles and attitudes. Institutional interventions, including universities’ role as ‘effective change agents’, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".